A monkey takes a selfie. The owner of the camera claims copyright. Wikipedia disagrees.
The posted pictures are great though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie_n_5654752.html
Wikipedia’s arguement has completely no legal premise, there argument is invalid, they’re claiming because the money took the photographers camera and took a picture of itself that the Photographer retains no right’s to the picture.
Well excuse me for pointing out the Obvious, but who own’s the Camera, the Photographer or the Monkey?
Didn’t know the Millionare Founder of Wikipedia Mr Jimmy Wales was suddenly so hard up he has to resort to pinching some Photographers picture of a grining monkey rather than bung the bloke a few quid for the rights to use the Picture.
Actually, I’m not too sure as to what to think of this, I just enjoyed the selfie!
But a question comes to mind. If someone was to write a novel on a friends computer, then publish it, would the owner of the computer retain copyright? But then, a monkey is not a person in the legal sense, so it would make some sense that the owner of the equipment retain copyright, if such were feasible. It’s kind of confusing for me, personally.
So I borrow my pencil to a designer, he draws an awesome piece of art, and therefore this art is mine? That would be ridiculous…
As pointed by the article, Wikimedia clearly states:
We didn’t think the monkey owned the copyright – instead, our assessment was that there’s no one who owns the copyright. That means that the image falls into the public domain.
Public domain all the way! \o/
Wikipedia wishes that was the case but the court will find in favor of the plaintiff jus sayin!
Jimmy Wales is a conceated wanker any way!!
Nah, I wont pay the dude for the photo, it’s easier for me and my legal partners to rip it off, speak volumnes, not to mention Wikipeida is part of the CIA’s intellipeida, but sadly none of them agreed to the GPL3 including the butt hole called Linux so now they all get to be screwed in the long run by the Free Software License… Which ironiclly doesnt give you a free reign license to behave how you like… Whilst there’s Google and Facebbook buying up drones, no, we’re sorry to inform you in the latest rendition of the License that you may NOT…
Suck it up… Silicon Valley! - and try not to choke on a Google smoked dick!
oh an Btw… @Jimmy if its in print it’s not slander… it’s called Libel!
C**t!
I have not looked into the matter, but on other forums where some Canadians were participating, they are saying that, in Canada, the owner of the equipment could claim copyright.
Aaaaaaaan here we are:
If American people aka “The People who love Copyright the most on Earth” say it, then it must be true.